Bush Administration Appeals Rulings Against Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft has appealed decisions by judges in New York and Nebraska finding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional. The judges said the ban ran afoul of a 2000 Supreme Court decision because it lacked a health exception doctors say is unnecessary. Pro-life groups were pleased with the decision and happy the Bush administration is strongly defending a law that could prohibit thousands of abortions, if upheld. "We commend the Bush Administration for its vigorous defense of the ban on partial-birth abortions," National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com. "This case will end up in the Supreme Court, and whether partial-birth abortion is banned ultimately will depend on who appoints the next Supreme Court justices," Johnson explained. If so, the election of the next president could decide the fate of the partial-birth abortion ban.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat832.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat832.html
posted by David at 11:16 AM
Track with co.mments
Rate this post:
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The difference between abortion and the death penalty is a) the Catechism allows for disagreement on the death penalty -- even the Pope admits that it may be necessary in extreme cases to protect the public -- and b) if someone is on death row, then apparently there is reason to believe that they committed a terrible crime against someone else (as long as they got a fair trial). Tell me what crime an unborn baby has committed, other than simply being alive!
>> even the Pope admits that it may be necessary in extreme cases to protect the public -- and b) if someone is on death row, then apparently there is reason to believe that they committed a terrible crime against someone else (as long as they got a fair trial).
Exactly what about a trial makes it 'unfair'? What if a) an innocent person is sentenced to death and/or b) an innocent person is murdered?
Has this ever happened? (answer is yea)
Can we call an oopsie, do over?
>>Tell me what crime an unborn baby has committed, other than simply being alive!
Tell me what crime the Iraqi women and children committed other than simply being alive!
If you answer these simple questions, you may have figured out why somebody might just be inclined to vote for Kerry.
You answer this question first:
Tell me what crime an unborn baby has committed, other than simply being alive?
And then I answer your questions. Okay?
>>Tell me what crime an unborn baby has committed, other than simply being alive?
And then I answer your questions. Okay?
Ok. An unborn baby has committed no crime that man has set up, according to our laws. Now, answer my questions.
>>>What if a) an innocent person is sentenced to death and/or b) an innocent person is murdered?
Then there is something wrong with the judicial system and that aspect of it (not necessarily the death penalty) should be fixed.
>>>Tell me what crime the Iraqi women and children committed other than simply being alive!
None, and that is the tragedy of all wars. What crime did the citizens of Dresden or Hiroshima commit? None, but does anyone argue that WWII was unjust?
I would also add that these Iraqi women and children were not deliberately targeted, which is in stark contrast to the purposeful murder of children through abortion.
Now, since it is established that innocents slaughtered in the womb have committed no crime and the sad fact that even just wars have innocent victims, how is abortion less wrong than waging war? Answer that question.
>>Then there is something wrong with the judicial system and that aspect of it (not necessarily the death penalty) should be fixed.
Okey-dokey, we keep killin 'em, until we fix problems in our system, right?
>>None, and that is the tragedy of all wars. What crime did the citizens of Dresden or Hiroshima commit? None, but does anyone argue that WWII was unjust?
They attacked us. Saddam didn't attack us here NYC, did he? Did he attack Pearl Harbor and I just wasn't keepin up on the news?
>>I would also add that these Iraqi women and children were not deliberately targeted, which is in stark contrast to the purposeful murder of children through abortion.
The Internation World Court of Law may differ on that with you. Is your argument that we killed 'em folk because we kill our own folk here in the wombs? That's kindofa mighty strong killin argument you have there.
>>Now, since it is established that innocents slaughtered in the womb have committed no crime and the sad fact that even just wars have innocent victims, how is abortion less wrong than waging war? Answer that question.
You've not yet established your 'just' war. There is no 'less' wrong when it comes to killin them folk in Iraq, or the ones in our wombs, or the ones killed by chemical contraceptives. The one's killed with chemical contraceptives outnumbers the other 2 by like 5 fold or sumptin'. Do you not care about them?
>>>Okey-dokey, we keep killin 'em, until we fix problems in our system, right?
Maybe we stop for a period of time, sure. But to state that it should never be used or there is never a reason to use it is not what the Church teaches.
>>>They attacked us. Saddam didn't attack us here NYC, did he? Did he attack Pearl Harbor and I just wasn't keepin up on the news?
The Germans did not attack us. Yes, the Japanese did, but were two nuclear detonations on "cities" not military bases proportionate?
>>>The International World Court of Law may differ on that with you.
Show me where we deliberately targeted civilians. Deliberately. For no other reason than the fact they were innocent civilians. And not the IWC. Show me CNN, o NYT or BBC. Nowhere in the military doctrine of the US military does it call for or allow what you claim.
I appreciate and respect you judgment that the war in Iraq is unjust. As Catholics were are allowed to use prudential judgment to come to different conclusions here. You and I have chosen differently. That does not make either one of us less a Catholic. But the Church does not allow us to abandon the innocent lost to the horrors of abortion every day in the same way we can decide if a war is unjust.
Chemical contraceptives = abortion. Yes. And much more should be done to educate the public about this and working to ban or outlaw them.
My question is this, what kind of a husband that is involved in terrorism, risks his family like those in Iraq that are trying to kill our soldiers? What kind of a husband loves his family that way? When people ask the question about the innocent women and children, I ask the question about the husband that is supposed to protect them. Why is he involved with terrorism and risking their lives? My guess, he didn't really give a rip about them in the first place. He is a sick individual no different than Sadam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. I realize that there are many that are not involved in terrorism and were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but there are also many who's husbands are putting their families deliberately in harms way.
>>Maybe we stop for a period of time, sure. But to state that it should never be used or there is never a reason to use it is not what the Church teaches.
What period of time? Until we stop killin the innocent because the process is flawed? Then yer fer Kerry on this issue.
>>>They attacked us. Saddam didn't attack us here NYC, did he? Did he attack Pearl Harbor and I just wasn't keepin up on the news?
>>The Germans did not attack us. Yes, the Japanese did, but were two nuclear detonations on "cities" not military bases proportionate?
I don't know much about proportionate when it comes to killin folk on a mass scale- perhaps yer much more versed on this subject matter. But yer the one who made comparisons to other wars. Killin folk in Iraq was not like killin folk in Japan or Germany. Yer just wrong in yer comparison.
>>>The International World Court of Law may differ on that with you.
>>Show me where we deliberately targeted civilians. Deliberately. For no other reason than the fact they were innocent civilians. And not the IWC. Show me CNN, o NYT or BBC. Nowhere in the military doctrine of the US military does it call for or allow what you claim.
Are you sayin that the International World Court of Law has NEVER charged the U.S. for committing war crimes? No matter, we don't trust them International World Court folk anyhow, so it just don't matter what they say about us.
>>I appreciate and respect you judgment that the war in Iraq is unjust. As Catholics were are allowed to use prudential judgment to come to different conclusions here. You and I have chosen differently. That does not make either one of us less a Catholic. But the Church does not allow us to abandon the innocent lost to the horrors of abortion every day in the same way we can decide if a war is unjust.
I'm not sayin you's less Catholic than me- I's just sayin that you's sayin that votin for anybuddy but Bush is less Catholic- That's just not accordin to the scriptural stuff. Nevertheless, you's seems to push it purty hard. I think you's very very wrong in doin that.
>>Chemical contraceptives = abortion. Yes. And much more should be done to educate the public about this and working to ban or outlaw them.
Actually, the point is that you's never mention this. You's mention traditional abortion doctoring stuff like 50 billion times and not mention chemical abortions once. That's why I calls ye a big fat hypocrite.
What kind of a Christian ridicules his brothers and sisters in Christ for their speech or intelligence?
Post a Comment
<< Home